71 Wis. 2d 237 - Getka v. Lader’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““295.01 Contempt power of courts. Every court of record may find in contempt any person who disobeys any process or lawful order of the court, violates or neglects an official duty, or is otherwise guilty of misconduct, by which act the rights or remedies of a party in an action or proceeding pending or triable in such court or before a court commissioner for the same county may be impaired, impeded, defeated or prejudiced. “295.02 Sanctions. Every court of record may, in the exercise of its equitable powers, enforce the rights or remedies of a party to an action or proceeding by imposing on any person found in contempt under s. 295.01 the following sanctions: “(l)(a) If an actual loss or injury has been produced to any party by the misconduct of the contemnor, which it is not efficacious to remedy by execution or garnishment, the court may order the defendant to pay such party a sum sufficient to compensate the party for losses, costs and expenses, and in such case the payment and acceptance of such a sum shall be an absolute bar to any action by the aggrieved party to recover damages in another action for such injury or loss. “(b) This subsection does not apply to an actual loss or injury arising out of a debt founded in contract or for a tort that is dis-chargeable in bankruptcy. “(2) (a) If the misconduct proved consists of an omission to perform some act or duty which it is yet in the power of a party to perform in part or in full, including a failure to indemnify anothe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 100 Wis. 2d 625 - Schroeder v. Schroeder

2. ““Setting aside the trial court injunction against the defendants does not, ipso facto, erase the contempt finding. . . . Where a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, the fact that an order or judgment is erroneously or improvidently rendered does not justify a person in failing to abide by its terms. The subsequent appeal and reversal of the injunction here does not alter the obligation of the defendants in this case to initially comply with such injunction until it was stayed or set aside.” [Footnote omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 84 Wis. 2d 487 - State v. Orethun